Aliling vs.

Feliciano

Facts
 This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing and seeking to set aside the
July 3, 2008 Decision and December 15, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
 Respondent Wide Wide World Express Corporation (WWWEC) offered to employ petitioner
Armando Aliling (Aliling) on June 2, 2004 as “Account Executive (Seafreight Sales),” with a
compensation package of a monthly salary of PhP 13,000, transportation allowance of PhP3,000,
clothing allowance of PhP 800, cost of living allowance of PhP 500, each payable on a per month
basis and a 14thmonth pay depending on the profitability and availability of financial resources of
the company. The offer came with a six (6)-month probation period condition with this express
caveat: “Performance during probationary period shall be made as basis for confirmation to
Regular or Permanent Status.”
 On June 11, 2004, Aliling and WWWEC inked an Employment Contract under the terms of
conversion to regular status shall be determined on the basis of work performance; and
employment services may, at any time, be terminated for just cause or in accordance with the
standards defined at the time of engagement.
 However, instead of a Seafreight Sale assignment, WWWEC asked Aliling to handle Ground
Express (GX), a new company product launched on June 18, 2004 involving domestic cargo
forwarding service for Luzon. Marketing this product and finding daily contracts for it formed the
core of Aliling’s new assignment.
 A month after, Manuel F. San Mateo III (San Mateo), WWWEC Sales and Marketing Director,
emailed Aliling to express dissatisfaction with the latter’s performance.
 On September 25, 2004, Joseph R. Lariosa (Lariosa), Human Resources Manager of WWWEC,
asked Aliling to report to the Human Resources Department to explain his absence taken without
leave from September 20, 2004. Aliling responded two d ays later. He denied being absent on the
days in question, attaching to his reply-letter a copy of his timesheet which showed that he
worked from September 20 to 24, 2004.
 Aliling’s explanation came with a query regarding the withholding of his salary corresponding to
September 11 to 25, 2004.
 On October 15, 2004, Aliling tendered his resignation to San Mateo. While WWWEC took no
action on his tender, Aliling nonetheless demanded reinstatement and a written apology, claiming
in a subsequent letter dated October 1, 2004 to management that San Mateo had forced him to
resign. Lariosa’s response-letter of October 1, 2004, informed Aliling that his case was still in the
process of being evaluated
 On October 6, 2004, Lariosa again wrote, this time to advise Aliling of the termination of his
services effective as of that date owing to his “non-satisfactory performance” during his
probationary period. Records show that Aliling, for the period indicated, was paid his outstanding
salary.
 However, or on October 4, 2004, Aliling filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal due to forced
resignation, nonpayment of salaries as well as damages with the NLRC against WWWEC.
 Appended to the complaint was Aliling’s Affidavit dated November 12, 2004,in which he stated:
“At the time of my engagement, respondents did not make known to me the standards under
which I will qualify as a regular employee.”
 Refuting Aliling’s basic posture, WWWEC stated that in the letter offer and employment contract
adverted to, WWWEC and Aliling have signed a letter of appointment on June 11, 2004
containing the terms of engagement. WWWEC also attached to its Position Paper a memo dated
September 20, 2004 in which San Mateo asked Aliling to explain why he should not be
terminated for failure to meet the expected job performance, considering that the load factor for
the GX Shuttles for the period July to September was only 0.18% as opposed to the allegedly
agreed upon load of 80% targeted for August 5, 2004.
 According to WWWEC, Aliling, instead of explaining himself, simply submitted a resignation letter.
 On April 25, 2006, the Labor Arbiter issued a decision declaring that the grounds upon which
complainant’s dismissal was based did not conform not only the standard but also the compliance
required under Article 281 of the Labor Code, Necessarily, complainant’s termination is not
justified for failure to comply with the mandate the law requires. Respondents should be ordered
to pay salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract of employment and all other
benefits amounting to a total of P35,811.00 covering the period from October 6 to December 7,
2004.
  The Labor Arbiter explained that Aliling cannot be validly terminated for non-compliance with the
quota threshold absent a prior advisory of the reasonable standards upon which his performance
would be evaluated.
 Both parties appealed the decision to the NLRC, which affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
The separate motions for reconsideration were also denied by the NLRC.
 The case was appealed to the CA and its assailed action on the strength of the following
premises:
o respondents failed to prove that Aliling’s dismal performance constituted gross and
habitual neglect necessary to justify his dismissal;
o not having been informed at the time of his engagement of the reasonable standards
under which he will qualify as a regular employee, Aliling was deemed to have been hired
from day one as a regular employee; and
o the strained relationship existing between the parties argues against the propriety of
reinstatement.

Issues
 Whether or not the petitioner is a regular employee
 Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed
 If illegally dismissed, whether or not he is entitled of reinstatement
 Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement

Ruling
 The Petition was partially granted and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
101309 is modified. Respondent Wide Wide World Express Corp. is liable to pay Armando Aliling
the following:
o Back wages reckoned from October 6, 2004 up to the finality of this Decision based on a
salary of PhP 17,300 a month, with interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount
from October 6, 2004 until fully paid;
o Additional sum equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, with a
fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one whole year based on the period
from June 11, 2004 (date of employment contract) until the finality of this Decision, as
separation pay;
o PhP 30,000 as nominal damages; and Attorney’s Fees equivalent to 10% of the total
award.
 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing
only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings being assailed are not supported by
evidence on record or the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.
 On the issue of the petitioner if he is a probationary or regular employee, the Court upheld the
CA’s decision. Respondents further allege that San Mateos email dated July 16, 2004 shows
that the standards for his regularization were made known to petitioner Aliling at the time of his
engagement. The aforequoted Section 6 of the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule VIII-A of the
Code specifically requires the employer to inform the probationary employee of such reasonable
standards at the time of his engagement, not at any time later; else, the latter shall be
considered a regular employee. Thus, petitioner Aliling is deemed a regular employee as of June
11, 2004, the date of his employment contract.
 The Court confirmed that petitioner was illegally dismissed. Respondent WWWEC miserably
failed to prove the termination of petitioner was for a just cause nor was there substantial
evidence to demonstrate the standards were made known to the latter at the time of his
engagement. This is also shown when the respondents failed to provide due process t the
petitioner regarding his termination from employment. Hence, petitioner’s right to security of
tenure was breached thus he was illegally dismissed.
 The petitioner is entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement on the ground of strained
relationship. As the CA correctly observed, To reinstate petitioner would only create an
atmosphere of antagonism and distrust, more so that he had only a short stint with respondent
company. The Court need not belabor the fact that the patent animosity that had developed
between employer and employee generated what may be considered as the arbitrary dismissal
of the petitioner.